|
Councilor Zelenka agreed that the Police Auditor ordinance was clear that all complaints should be
<br />forwarded to the auditor and there were no exceptions. He said if the chief deemed it necessary, information
<br />could have been redacted.
<br />
<br />Councilor Clark said he saw many people who were victimized downtown and who experienced offensive
<br />behavior. He thanked Betty and Cassandra Snowden for speaking up.
<br />
<br />Councilor Bettman said development of the police auditor model took 18 months and went through multiple
<br />subcommittees and public forums, resulting in a comprehensive process consistent with community values.
<br />
<br />2. CONSENT CALENDAR
<br />A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the June 9, 2008, Work Session; June 11, 2008,
<br />Work Session; June 18, 2008, Work Session; June 23, 2008, Work Session
<br />B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
<br />C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of June 18, 2008
<br />D. Appointment to Toxics Board
<br />
<br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the items on the consent
<br />calendar. The motion passed; 8:0.
<br />
<br />3. ACTION:
<br />Minor Code Amendments
<br />Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Sections 9.0020,
<br />9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9,2630, 9.2683, 9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310,
<br />9.3810, 9.3910, 9.5500, 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.8320, 9.8430,
<br />9.8555, and 4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding a New Section 9.7007 to that Code; and
<br />Providing an Effective Date
<br />and
<br />Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Section 9.2751 of
<br />the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date
<br />
<br />Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council
<br />adopt Council Bill 4979, an ordinance concerning land use regulations.
<br />
<br />Councilor Clark said he understood that the amendments resulting from the Minor Code Amendment
<br />Process (MiCAP) were intended to be minor in nature and able to be adopted quickly without significant
<br />controversy or threat of litigation. He asked about the purpose of Exhibit A, Attachment B: Findings,
<br />which had been distributed at the meeting. Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department, said the
<br />findings were inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet and were an attachment to Ordinance B. She
<br />said they were the same findings presented to the council in July 2008.
<br />
<br />Councilor Clark expressed concern that putting the stormwater manual language into the code (MiCAP
<br />Topic #8) was, in fact, a land use action. He asked staff to elaborate on the finding that the supply or
<br />availability of buildable lands would not be impacted. Ms. Hansen replied that there was no Statewide
<br />Planning Goal 10 issue related to adding that provision of the manual to the code. She said that provision
<br />was already in existing regulations that applied to development currently. She said the amendment was
<br />suggested by a resident of the River Road/Santa Clara area and the neighborhood supported including it in
<br />the code. She said no additional protections were added; the amendment only took language from the
<br />manual that already applied to development and inserted it in the code.
<br />
<br />Councilor Clark said he had heard testimony during the public hearing expressing concern that taking an
<br />administrative rule, which could be easily modified, and placing it in code, created a much more cumber-
<br />some process for revisions. He felt that the amendment did have an affect on land supply, the extent of
<br />which was not yet known, and should be subjected to further research before action was taken.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|